To all 57-FX owners

[Geomon]

Also Mav, do you find that when you buy a brand new cpu that their overclocks improve over time. Say that a new cpu would be stuck at 2.6ghz as its max overclock but then after a month of use it overclocks to 2.650. Like running them in. Is there any truth to this?

 

[maverik-sg1]

Also Mav, do you find that when you buy a brand new cpu that their overclocks improve over time. Say that a new cpu would be stuck at 2.6ghz as its max overclock but then after a month of use it overclocks to 2.650. Like running them in. Is there any truth to this?

I've never really had experience either way (improvements or gets worse) although some people have said that over time overclocks might not improve but they can lower the volts required to maintain the best clocks, which results in better temps.

Mav

 

[GoLLuM4444]

I've never really had experience either way (improvements or gets worse) although some people have said that over time overclocks might not improve but they can lower the volts required to maintain the best clocks, which results in better temps.

Mav

True for me and burn in did help the clocks a little too but don't expect to like double your overclock or anything.

 

[stocky]

I had a graphics card that blew up once, and started artifacting very badly at any clocks.

I left it for a week, then plugged it back in, and it clocked better than ever with no problems. It is still working to this day - explain that

 

[K404]

My old Winchester (oh how I miss her) needed more volts to do slightly slower clocks as she got older. A lot of ppl have said similar things. I personally wouldnt run at full stable OC. Back off a little for 24/7 and only crank up for MHz for benching.

I, personally, dont see how burning in helps components. Stressing components for a length of time causes what I explained in the previous paragraph, yet for RAM it works the opposite way? I`m not having a go at anyone..but how can stressing do both things??

Kenny

 

[maverik-sg1]

My old Winchester (oh how I miss her) needed more volts to do slightly slower clocks as she got older. A lot of ppl have said similar things. I personally wouldnt run at full stable OC. Back off a little for 24/7 and only crank up for MHz for benching.

I, personally, dont see how burning in helps components. Stressing components for a length of time causes what I explained in the previous paragraph, yet for RAM it works the opposite way? I`m not having a go at anyone..but how can stressing do both things??

There is always a risk of things going wrong I suppose -

Kenny

Reference burning in - I wont get technical as although I know what I want to say I know I'll muff it up. But is has somehting to do with certain pathways being made bigger by running over them reptitively - the larger the pathway is, the least resistance you get by pasing the information down it etc.....

It goes on, but I hope you get the gist of what I am trying to say.

 

[Geomon]

Well Mav all I can say is that when I bought it I wa struggerling to hit 2.970 but today I have been tweaking it all day and I am at 3.050 stable with 1.6vcore, I just tried 3.70 at the same vcore but it failed prime within 17mins, I have now upped the vcore to 1.630 and its been runnng prime for the last 10mins.

There must be something in this burning in lark as thats nearly a 100mhz increase from when it was new. I think when I got all 3 panaflo's running this also helped too but it was overclocking much better even before I got all 3 fans going.

Plus this is on a bad overclocking board(Asus a8v-e) which doesn't even support 1t on it ram settings. I got a feeling that when I put the cpu on a Dfi with there better voltage deliver through better capacitors it'll increase even further again.

Heck the way it going I might even catch up with you mav even without a Mach GT . I'm gonna be the first to hit 3.6 on watercooling alone! hehe..

Just messing but I am a lot more happy with the chip now than I was last week.

Bring on the MACH!!

 

[maverik-sg1]

Well Mav all I can say is that when I bought it I wa struggerling to hit 2.970 but today I have been tweaking it all day and I am at 3.050 stable with 1.6vcore, I just tried 3.70 at the same vcore but it failed prime within 17mins, I have now upped the vcore to 1.630 and its been runnng prime for the last 10mins.

There must be something in this burning in lark as thats nearly a 100mhz increase from when it was new. I think when I got all 3 panaflo's running this also helped too but it was overclocking much better even before I got all 3 fans going.

Plus this is on a bad overclocking board(Asus a8v-e) which doesn't even support 1t on it ram settings. I got a feeling that when I put the cpu on a Dfi with there better voltage deliver through better capacitors it'll increase even further again.

Heck the way it going I might even catch up with you mav even without a Mach GT . I'm gonna be the first to hit 3.6 on watercooling alone! hehe..

Just messing but I am a lot more happy with the chip now than I was last week.

Bring on the MACH!!

Excellent - it's a good example of how to do things gradually and you'll succeed.

Congrats and keep going.

Mav

 

[dumo]

Now I know its no week 16 but is this what the average 57-FX clocks like?

FX 57s from 0512 to 0530 will be ok with phase...On the other hand, 0531/2s and newer are useless with phase.

 

[maverik-sg1]

FX 57s from 0512 to 0530 will be ok with phase...On the other hand, 0531/2s and newer are useless with phase.

Making any FX SD Cored chip that is proven to be good under phase all that much more valuable?

Mav

 

[dumo]

Making any FX SD Cored chip that is proven to be good under phase all that much more valuable?

Mav

Yes, right now in one forum f/s thread 0532 on sale for$599 and 0528/0516 for $800/900...

Heres....0532 and 0528 and this is 0516

Those chips aren't mine...just for info, 0531/32 really fly with regular air cooling though...

 

[Geomon]

The GT is due next week so fingers crossed my week33 will peform good with the GT. Hitting a stable 3.4 is good for me.